On 04/07/2012 09:03 PM, Alan Cox wrote:>> You do not need to make dual licenses when licenses are compatible>> with each other, and in fact at times this can confuse developers / legal.>> Firstly you are out of order touching the licensing tags of other vendors> code. Absolutely and utterly. So nobody should for example be touching an> Intel MODULE_LICENSE() tag without the say so of Intel legal.

As the patch also includes driver code that Broadcom contributed to the kernel, I am inclined to agree. But to me it is not clear whether the MODULE_LICENSE() tag holds a true legal value. How does it relate to the legal disclaimer that is (probably) in each and every source file?